W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-91: Removing the aside Element

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:38:59 -0400
Message-ID: <4C0D20A3.3080902@intertwingly.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On 06/07/2010 12:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Leif Halvard Silli
> <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>  wrote:
>> The need to continue to discus<figure>,<details>  etc was not
>> expressed in the counter-proposal. If it had been expressed there, then
>> not only would it have lowered the ad-hominen smack of the whole
>> counter-proposal effort, it could also have lead to more support for it.
> I wasn't aware that there was any particular need to assert that this
> portion of the spec would continue to be edited like every other
> portion of the spec.  It seems redundant to add that into every Change
> Proposal written from now on, but I can make sure that it is a part of
> any proposals I author from now on if necessary.

Not necessary.

> ~TJ

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 16:39:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:03 UTC